Markovich wrote on 03/12/10 at 13:30:41:


I agree with most of this.

Re the variation that is starting to be called the Miles, 1 e4 Nf6 2 e5 Nd5 3 d4 d6 4 Nf3 exd5 5 Nxe5 c6, I would say it's just one more attempt to reach a Caro Kann structure, along with the Centre Counter and the Fort Knox French. That it is playable at all is IMHO testament to the flexibility of the Alekhine (and perhaps also to the toothlessness of 4 Nf3). But for me it is not in the true Alekhine spirit (neither is the e-pawn capture against the Exchange variation).

Re the 4 Pawns, Baburin springs to mind as a GM who seldom varies from the Alekhine, yet only rarely have his fellow GMs (Kotronias and Illescas are exceptions that spring to mind) dared to take him on in the Four Pawns attack. 

One reason is no doubt the feeling that Baburin's greater familiarity with the unusual positions that arise might count for more than a few hours of pre-game prep with the computer. Another is the uncertainty about which line / move order Black will choose - White's prep has to be both wide and deep, since Black has many set-ups and move orders he can use.

I am certain that if the Alekhine ever achieves the popularity of the Sicilian then the professionals will start considering that time spent on prep'ing the Four Pawns attack is a better investment than it is today.

For now, though, the Alekhine player can probably expect to face 4 Nf3 or the Exchange variation in the majority of his over the board games.

lg wrote on 03/14/10 at 18:39:35:


He perhaps visits us here.  But it's not such a huge find; it could have been discovered independently elsewhere.

Excellent analysis by Kevin, breaking everything down to the bare essentials! Should be required reading for all chess players.

lg wrote on 03/12/10 at 16:00:01:


Well, if you are going to play it occasionally, you have to start at some point. I agree that perhaps this wasn't the best timing or opponent for a first try. 

MarkG wrote on 03/11/10 at 21:51:06:


Well of course, longstanding judgments are often revised, and in chess, everything comes down to specifics.  If somebody could show how Black could equalize against 15.Nc3 as given above, I would be quite happy to play 8...0-0.  I salute Marin for his creativity and his willingness to take a fresh look a problem long considered settled, but for the time being, I disagree with his favorable opinion of Black's chances in this line.

@Paddy:  Interesting.  You look at the position after 5...c6, and though White may be for choice, inevitably it's a pretty even game of chess.  So, sometimes people lose chess games.  My problem is, I could never make myself play such a passive move as 5...c6; I would at least prefer 5...g6.  The problems are similar, but Black at least has occasional prospects of ...c7-c5.  We've been over this before here, of course.

I've been wondering if the general reticence to take up Alekhine's as any strong player's main defense stems, not from any reluctance to play the position after 5...c6, but from fear of the Four Pawns Attack.  If someone knew you were quite likely to play Alekhine's, his preparing the Four Pawns might make a great deal of sense, and then you would have to prep up on it also.  But if Black only tosses in the occasional Alekhine's, he can be pretty sure he's not going to encounter the Four Pawns, and if he does, he can play any old dodgy attempt and hope it works.

Markovich wrote on 03/11/10 at 21:22:45:


I definitely agree with you here (though I am a bit more optimistic about 8...Qe7). 8...0-0 looks completely wrong to me on general principles - white gets a free attack. Perhaps a computer will always find a way to avoid being mated as black but white must be heavy favorite over the board.

Moreover, the line was always thought to be bad since at least the mid-80s (showing my age a bit). 

I thought 8...0-0 was well known to be be inferior to 8...Qe7 - for example, both Cox and Davies in their respective books dismiss it. Frankly, if black is reduced to playing this way, then the Alburt variation is stone dead.

Has something really horrible been found after 8...Qe7 to encourage Reinderman to persist with this line?

lg wrote on 03/09/10 at 12:56:42:


The game has already been analysed by Dennis Monokroussos at his always topical website:

http://www.thechessmind.net/storage/chess-posts/eicc2010_rd3.htm

and by Marin (!) at

http://www.chessbase.de/cbm/cbm134/cbm134-09/nisipeanu_reindermann.htm